Warren Buffet's Secretary

[jimboston]

Yes, I was just addressing the figures presented. My point is that the line would be well above 20K. Also, there needs to be some graduation of rate.. not just a "boom, you pay". That last just leads to more cheating at the margins.

We already have a graduated income tax... how fine do you want it to be???

[PLAYER57832]

I guess the question (posed by BBS and Player) is - what do CEOs do to justify a high salary? I'll speak for both of them.

BBS - "CEOs get high salaries because the markets sets those high salaries."

Player - "CEOs look at numbers, make a few phone calls, and tell other people to do research."

No, I was referring to investors, particularly the bigger investors. And that is pretty clear from the context. Someone like myself pretty much has to do my own research or I wind up paying an "expert" more than what I would make in any profit. The big guys hire people to do that for them.. and they are able to put down enough to get significant return just by basically "playing their money". They select good managers. They are in a position to do more with their money, because they have more, not because they "work harder".

That said, CEO pay is another problem.

So, I looked up what the job responsibilties of a CEO are. From wiki:

The responsibilities of an organization's CEO are set by the organization's board of directors or other authority, depending on the organization's legal strucutre. They can be far-reaching or quite limited and are typically enshrined in a formal delegation of authority.

Typically, the CEO has responsibilities as a communicator, decision maker, leader, and manager. The communicator role can involve the press and the rest of the outside world, as well as the organization's management and employees; the decision-making role involves high-level decisions about policy and strategy. As a leader, the CEO advises the board of directors, motivates employees, and drives change within the organization. As a manager, the CEO presides over the organization's day-to-day, month-to-month, and year-to-year operations.

CEOs lead, certainly should get more than , say the janitor, and even by a magnitude or two. HOWEVER, even the most conservative economist has a hard time truly justifying these supremely high CEO pay rates we now see based on "merit" or "the market". It is certainly not based on increasing company production or any of the historic traditional measures of judging real profit.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, I was just addressing the figures presented. My point is that the line would be well above 20K. Also, there needs to be some graduation of rate.. not just a "boom, you pay". That last just leads to more cheating at the margins.

We already have a graduated income tax... how fine do you want it to be???

READ the context, please. This was in reference to increasing capitol gains and other taxes.

NOTE.. not saying that our income tax levels are exactly correct, but that is just a different topic, not what was addressed in my post or the original one that started this line of discussion.

[thegreekdog]

No, I was referring to investors, particularly the bigger investors. And that is pretty clear from the context. Someone like myself pretty much has to do my own research or I wind up paying an "expert" more than what I would make in any profit. The big guys hire people to do that for them.. and they are able to put down enough to get significant return just by basically "playing their money". They select good managers. They are in a position to do more with their money, because they have more, not because they "work harder".

Yes, you're right, you were referring to investors. Sorry about that.

As for CEO salaries, I believe BBS is correct (that they are paid based on the market, and not based on merit). That being said, I remain shocked by what the market has determined is a fair CEO salary.

[jimboston]

Someone please shoot me before I get sucked into a 'debate' with Player!

[PLAYER57832]

These are absolutely NOT the answer.

We know. In your book, the ONLY answer is to tax the crap out of "the rich" since they owe you everything they've made.

NO, that is plain false, but you need to believe that or your world view will be destroyed.

My view is that people who gain from capitol gains do not put as much into our society as people who actually work, and that people who just plop down money skew things in ways that make it way to easy to ignore real impacts. A worker might be forced to put up with danger. Many ARE.. but they know it. An investor generally has no such obligation. In fact, even when problems ARE found, the money is often structured such that they don't have to worry about any real responsibility. At most, they might risk the money they invested, but sometimes not even that.

I have no problem with people who truly EARN their money. Oprah, for example. She may well be overpaid, but she works hard for most of her money. Even her investments are much more "involved" investments than many people's.

[PLAYER57832]

No, I was referring to investors, particularly the bigger investors. And that is pretty clear from the context. Someone like myself pretty much has to do my own research or I wind up paying an "expert" more than what I would make in any profit. The big guys hire people to do that for them.. and they are able to put down enough to get significant return just by basically "playing their money". They select good managers. They are in a position to do more with their money, because they have more, not because they "work harder".

Yes, you're right, you were referring to investors. Sorry about that.

As for CEO salaries, I believe BBS is correct (that they are paid based on the market, and not based on merit). That being said, I remain shocked by what the market has determined is a fair CEO salary.

The problem is its an isolated "CEO market" and based on investor/stockholder needs, not long term company needs. This is why I say its not really and truly market based. Its not based on our overall economy, overall consumer market. And, that, I would say is part of the problem.

Again, people who head companies are not stupid, DO work hard. The question is not whether they deserve more than the average workers.. they DO! The question is whether they deserve 20 times as much as someone heading a company 30 years ago did. I have to go, cannot dig up the numbers this instant, but I am thinking I heard it said that some CEOS are making 100 times what could be reasonably expected just a generation ago, even adjusted for inflation. THAT gets hard to justify, in my book.

Also, though this gets into another topic, while I think CEOs deserve a lot of money, I ALSO think that researches and those who truly work to move the company forward in real and physical ways deserve more compensation in many cases (more than they get now, not necessarily more than the CEO.. though I am not going to discount the possibility that perhaps some researches might actually deserve to be paid more than a CEO, in some cases). But, they don't get it because so many at the top, plus investors all have to get their piece. Yet, those investors can just pick up and go elsewhere.. the worker cannot. In a sense, they sort of hold the worker to a kind of blackmail.. either we get paid 2% more or we leave, more the business elsewhere. This changes incentives in very bad ways.. bad for companies, bad for our economy. (but again, this is getting into another topic entirely).

[BigBallinStalin]

No, I was referring to investors, particularly the bigger investors. And that is pretty clear from the context. Someone like myself pretty much has to do my own research or I wind up paying an "expert" more than what I would make in any profit. The big guys hire people to do that for them.. and they are able to put down enough to get significant return just by basically "playing their money". They select good managers. They are in a position to do more with their money, because they have more, not because they "work harder".

Yes, you're right, you were referring to investors. Sorry about that.

As for CEO salaries, I believe BBS is correct (that they are paid based on the market, and not based on merit). That being said, I remain shocked by what the market has determined is a fair CEO salary.

I guess the question (posed by BBS and Player) is - what do CEOs do to justify a high salary? I'll speak for both of them.

BBS - "CEOs get high salaries because the markets sets those high salaries."

To be clear, there is an average price in the market for all CEOs, but that's not what I'm saying. My position is that a CEO's price is set by the expected benefits minus costs, which are perceived by the owners/board/committee who hire the CEO.

Markets themselves don't set prices. Individuals do.

Some employers of CEOs may look at the average price for CEOs in the American market in order to determine how much to offer, but that's just an average price. Expected performance (i.e. merit) also influences the board's "calculus" on setting the right price.

Then there's the other side: the CEO. He isn't simply a price-taker. Depending on the competitiveness of the market and the company-CEO's specific fit, his bargaining price can be lower or higher than the average. Also, from the CEO's perspective, the price to which he agrees depends on his alternative offers (which include a price/wage, plus other value beyond the nominal price).

[BigBallinStalin]

No, I was referring to investors, particularly the bigger investors. And that is pretty clear from the context. Someone like myself pretty much has to do my own research or I wind up paying an "expert" more than what I would make in any profit. The big guys hire people to do that for them.. and they are able to put down enough to get significant return just by basically "playing their money". They select good managers. They are in a position to do more with their money, because they have more, not because they "work harder".

Yes, you're right, you were referring to investors. Sorry about that.

As for CEO salaries, I believe BBS is correct (that they are paid based on the market, and not based on merit). That being said, I remain shocked by what the market has determined is a fair CEO salary.

The problem is its an isolated "CEO market" and based on investor/stockholder needs, not long term company needs. This is why I say its not really and truly market based. Its not based on our overall economy, overall consumer market. And, that, I would say is part of the problem.

Again, people who head companies are not stupid, DO work hard. The question is not whether they deserve more than the average workers.. they DO! The question is whether they deserve 20 times as much as someone heading a company 30 years ago did. I have to go, cannot dig up the numbers this instant, but I am thinking I heard it said that some CEOS are making 100 times what could be reasonably expected just a generation ago, even adjusted for inflation. THAT gets hard to justify, in my book.

Also, though this gets into another topic, while I think CEOs deserve a lot of money, I ALSO think that researches and those who truly work to move the company forward in real and physical ways deserve more compensation in many cases (more than they get now, not necessarily more than the CEO.. though I am not going to discount the possibility that perhaps some researches might actually deserve to be paid more than a CEO, in some cases). But, they don't get it because so many at the top, plus investors all have to get their piece. Yet, those investors can just pick up and go elsewhere.. the worker cannot. In a sense, they sort of hold the worker to a kind of blackmail.. either we get paid 2% more or we leave, more the business elsewhere. This changes incentives in very bad ways.. bad for companies, bad for our economy. (but again, this is getting into another topic entirely).

What's a fair price? How should prices be set so that one "truly" deserves such a price?

[PLAYER57832]

No, I was referring to investors, particularly the bigger investors. And that is pretty clear from the context. Someone like myself pretty much has to do my own research or I wind up paying an "expert" more than what I would make in any profit. The big guys hire people to do that for them.. and they are able to put down enough to get significant return just by basically "playing their money". They select good managers. They are in a position to do more with their money, because they have more, not because they "work harder".

Yes, you're right, you were referring to investors. Sorry about that.

As for CEO salaries, I believe BBS is correct (that they are paid based on the market, and not based on merit). That being said, I remain shocked by what the market has determined is a fair CEO salary.

The problem is its an isolated "CEO market" and based on investor/stockholder needs, not long term company needs. This is why I say its not really and truly market based. Its not based on our overall economy, overall consumer market. And, that, I would say is part of the problem.

Again, people who head companies are not stupid, DO work hard. The question is not whether they deserve more than the average workers.. they DO! The question is whether they deserve 20 times as much as someone heading a company 30 years ago did. I have to go, cannot dig up the numbers this instant, but I am thinking I heard it said that some CEOS are making 100 times what could be reasonably expected just a generation ago, even adjusted for inflation. THAT gets hard to justify, in my book.

Also, though this gets into another topic, while I think CEOs deserve a lot of money, I ALSO think that researches and those who truly work to move the company forward in real and physical ways deserve more compensation in many cases (more than they get now, not necessarily more than the CEO.. though I am not going to discount the possibility that perhaps some researches might actually deserve to be paid more than a CEO, in some cases). But, they don't get it because so many at the top, plus investors all have to get their piece. Yet, those investors can just pick up and go elsewhere.. the worker cannot. In a sense, they sort of hold the worker to a kind of blackmail.. either we get paid 2% more or we leave, more the business elsewhere. This changes incentives in very bad ways.. bad for companies, bad for our economy. (but again, this is getting into another topic entirely).

What's a fair price? How should prices be set so that one "truly" deserves such a price?

"fair???" Sorry, but "fair" is for kindergarteners.

There is nothing "fair' about a few people makig 1000000 times more than others, who might even be working much harder, doing more for society, etc. BUT... that only matters when folks try to claim our current system IS "fair". "Fairness" is just not a true part of life.

However, the question was about the market. Right now, the cost/benefit ratio has too little to do with production of products and provision of real services. Equity firms, for example, don't really "care" what product is being made. There is absolutely nothing in that money stream that make them really worry about whether the product is truly beneficial to society, whether the operation is destructive or something that will advance our country, etc. You can sort of make the same argument for ALL business, but there is a big, BIG difference which I highlighted earlier. If you even just have to live next to a company you run, for example, you are going to care a bit more about everything from nasty smells to certainly toxics coming into your yard. What those connections are removed, it becomes just too easy for even decent people to find they are actually supporting pretty nasty stuff. Less than nice people, well.... can REALLY take advantage.

Similarly, when you at least tie the salary of a CEO to the actual production, hiring levels and such of a company (that is, if the company has to downsize, then the CEO salary ought to be "downsized", not increased), and such, then you see different behavior than we do today. IF you add in other types of responsibility, such as not just simply complying with basic environmental laws, but even going beyond the requiremets a bit when prudent, then you see yet different behavior. (some companies have been built on that ethos, but they can also be taken over and the culture changed in an instant because someone else just cares about making money).

so much of today is based on the idea that as long as its making money, its OK... and well, it just truly is not always OK. Many times JUST looking at making money and ignoring how is very, very bad. That is, of course true in criminality, but it is also true in things we have come to accept as a society because, well.... we have been convinced we don't have an option. I think it was Nightstrike who claimed that if companies were forced to truly respect the environment, pay for damages they cause to others there would be no industry. My response was "wrong, there would be innovation to protect the environment, reduce damage" much more. Now, a pure system is impossible. However, our system has gotten heavily skewed away from things that benefit society as a whole, to things that benefit an increasingly small few at the top. That is a classic indicator of a society about to fail.

Listening to a lot of younger economists and conservatives speak, you would think that our vast natural resources had nothing at all to do with our success. Yet, they ARE why we are where we are, very fundamentally. So, to be simplistic about it, destroying that basis is going to harm us very directly.

[BigBallinStalin]

Minimum wage and salary caps aren't fair either way. Your choice of one over the other is just arbitrary.

Your post is full of conjecture. You make some very large assumptions about entire industries and groups of people. You make wild predictions based on little evidence. That kind of analysis is prone to error and is not convincing, so let's just regress back to my post.

inb4: "classic BBS, always asking to be reasonable and stuff"


Anyway, let's take your position as given: CEOs don't deserve X amount of money.

Now comes the question on the means of implementing such a policy:

How should prices be set so that one "truly" deserves such a price?

[Timminz]

I'd be interested to find out what net benefit is being realized by the growing divide in compensation. In other words, is the market for top executives working in an efficient manner.

[PLAYER57832]

Minimum wage and salary caps aren't fair either way. Your choice of one over the other is just arbitrary.

Who said anything about a flat cap. I spoke of a cap that would be tied to specific indicators, particularly production.

Your post is full of conjecture.

Nomore than anyone else here. We are not talking about any one specific company, but an industry.

You make some very large assumptions about entire industries and groups of people. You make wild predictions based on little evidence.

No evidence? In fact, I cited several specific facts, which you consistantly ignore as "irrelevant" and so forth. YOUR basic argument is "that's just not now its done now... so its wrong".

That kind of analysis is prone to error and is not convincing, so let's just regress back to my post.

Nope, but ignoring anything not spelled out in your macroeconomic texts WILL definitely lead you to an extremely distorted perception of the world. Contrary to your assumptions, the world doesn't really run on money, it runs on production and work. You can invest all you like, but forget that fact, and forget that those things making money now have real impacts that can only be ignored in the short term, and, well.. you have the world of a lot of so-called political "geniuses" today.

Anyway, let's take your position as given: CEOs don't deserve X amount of money.

Now comes the question on the means of implementing such a policy:

How should prices be set so that one "truly" deserves such a price?

I said that above, it should be tied to production of goods and services, with some DIRECT controls to ensure that things like pollution, poor worker conditions ( to name some of the biggest), etc, etc are not ignored. In short.. a lot like things USED to be in the age of prduction, before our current age of investment.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd be interested to find out what net benefit is being realized by the growing divide in compensation. In other words, is the market for top executives working in an efficient manner.

Probably not. It's difficult to determine how inefficiencies are caused. It's a big tangled web of regulation and human responses to the various rules of the game.

[PLAYER57832]

I'd be interested to find out what net benefit is being realized by the growing divide in compensation. In other words, is the market for top executives working in an efficient manner.

Probably not. It's difficult to determine how inefficiencies are caused. It's a big tangled web of regulation and human responses to the various rules of the game.

More like greed. With those in power always fundamentally attempting to swing things to their favor.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think it's that unsophisticated.

But if you do, then okay.

[thegreekdog]

I'd be interested to find out what net benefit is being realized by the growing divide in compensation. In other words, is the market for top executives working in an efficient manner.

Probably not. It's difficult to determine how inefficiencies are caused. It's a big tangled web of regulation and human responses to the various rules of the game.

More like greed. With those in power always fundamentally attempting to swing things to their favor.

Player, are you not trying to swing things in your favor? If so, are your motivations any more pure (or is it purer) than these power hungry people you keep railing about?

[PLAYER57832]

I'd be interested to find out what net benefit is being realized by the growing divide in compensation. In other words, is the market for top executives working in an efficient manner.

Probably not. It's difficult to determine how inefficiencies are caused. It's a big tangled web of regulation and human responses to the various rules of the game.

More like greed. With those in power always fundamentally attempting to swing things to their favor.

Player, are you not trying to swing things in your favor? If so, are your motivations any more pure (or is it purer) than these power hungry people you keep railing about?

How is wanting a sustainable economy, a environment that is not ready to collapse self-serving?

The difference is that I do not see bringing others down as necessary to bringing myself up. Many of those playing the game at the top very much do. Machiavelli has gotten pretty popular of late.

[Night Strike]

The difference is that I do not see bringing others down as necessary to bringing myself up.

Yeah you do. You constantly spout wanting the evil rich people to pay more because people like you have had a hard life and thing you deserve to take it from them. You think everybody else owes you for what you've done.

[thegreekdog]

I'd be interested to find out what net benefit is being realized by the growing divide in compensation. In other words, is the market for top executives working in an efficient manner.

Probably not. It's difficult to determine how inefficiencies are caused. It's a big tangled web of regulation and human responses to the various rules of the game.

More like greed. With those in power always fundamentally attempting to swing things to their favor.

Player, are you not trying to swing things in your favor? If so, are your motivations any more pure (or is it purer) than these power hungry people you keep railing about?

How is wanting a sustainable economy, a environment that is not ready to collapse self-serving?

The difference is that I do not see bringing others down as necessary to bringing myself up. Many of those playing the game at the top very much do. Machiavelli has gotten pretty popular of late.

Why wouldn't everyone else want a sustainable economy or an non-collapsing environment?

The answer is that everyone wants a sustainable economy and a good environment. The differences between you and, let's say, a CEO fall into two categories.

The first category is "how do we get there" and that's about the different ways in which everyone can get to a sustainable economy or a good environment.

The second category is "what do we have to give up" and that's a little more problematic. From your side of things, you don't have to or want to give up anything, but you want the CEO to give up some things.

So there's the problem. The CEO and you want the same things. You have different ideas of how to get there. And in order for your ideas to work, you need the CEO to give up things while you give up nothing. And you think it's well within reason for you to require (or for your government to require) the CEO to give up those things. Even further, you think it's ludicrous that anyone would argue with you with either your ideas or how to get those things to work. All of those things are problematic.

[PLAYER57832]

The difference is that I do not see bringing others down as necessary to bringing myself up.

Yeah you do. You constantly spout wanting the evil rich people to pay more because people like you have had a hard life and thing you deserve to take it from them. You think everybody else owes you for what you've done.

Look up the definition of "evil" why don't you.

I want people who have taken undully from others, who refuse to acknowledge that they owe others for what they have to pay for those things. I do not advocate stealing from people who have actually and rightfully earned what they have, though I know that is what you keep attempting to claim.

[PLAYER57832]

Why wouldn't everyone else want a sustainable economy or an non-collapsing environment?

The answer is that everyone wants a sustainable economy and a good environment. The differences between you and, let's say, a CEO fall into two categories.

The first category is "how do we get there" and that's about the different ways in which everyone can get to a sustainable economy or a good environment.

The second category is "what do we have to give up" and that's a little more problematic. From your side of things, you don't have to or want to give up anything, but you want the CEO to give up some things.

So there's the problem. The CEO and you want the same things. You have different ideas of how to get there. And in order for your ideas to work, you need the CEO to give up things while you give up nothing. And you think it's well within reason for you to require (or for your government to require) the CEO to give up those things. Even further, you think it's ludicrous that anyone would argue with you with either your ideas or how to get those things to work. All of those things are problematic.

You are correct that if you were to ask the average CEO would say they want a sustainable economy and environment (set aside the few truly idiot jerks and depots out there for the moment, though a few of those do more harm than a million of the others). However, when you leap from "to get what I want" to "CEOs have to give up things" and further even add "I have to give up nothing", you ignore a good many details.

First and foremost is evidence. The folks in charge of , say a drilling operation in Western PA may not intend to destroy the wells of a 100 people or to allow potentially harmful fluid to get into the water system of a local municipality, but it happens becuase he is not forced to consider the evidence that this might happen. OR, in the case of the latter, is either removed enough from the people on the ground or faces such light penalties for the occurance that its easy to just ignore the threats. In fact, most of those guys will flat out deny that these chemicals actually cause much harm. In some cases, no one (outside of a few in the company) even knows what they are, they are not required to test them effectively and are allowed to dismiss evidence of harm that does exist.

Second, despite Night strike's claims.. and it now seems yours as well, I am not advocating communism or simply taking from anyone making a certain wage or having a specific position. I am saying we need a system that makes people actually pay for costs they encure, that removes this idea that externalities are OK to just pass on to the public and not something most businesses really and truly need to think about. Far from your claim that I want them to pay while I pay nothing, I am saying that I AM PAYING, right now, and that this is not right! I and every other person in America is, right now, paying to subsidize everyone from Walmart to pharmaceutical companies to oil drillers to basically any big business in this country.. and a few smaller businesses as well. SOME of those payments are legitimate. I don't mind some government money going to true start-ups on a local level, for example. (not going to get bogged down in a full list here).

so, what we really have is a complete difference of world view, based on entirely different evidence.

and, what is really scary to me is that all the "improvements" in education are working very much to eliminate any knowledge of the greater world view here in the US, except perhaps in some elite schools where the CEO kids get to go.

[PLAYER57832]

Case in point.. did you happen to catch Santorum's interview where he clarified that his reference to "poor theology" meant people who think we should improve the environment? (among a few other issues)

[thegreekdog]

Why wouldn't everyone else want a sustainable economy or an non-collapsing environment?

The answer is that everyone wants a sustainable economy and a good environment. The differences between you and, let's say, a CEO fall into two categories.

The first category is "how do we get there" and that's about the different ways in which everyone can get to a sustainable economy or a good environment.

The second category is "what do we have to give up" and that's a little more problematic. From your side of things, you don't have to or want to give up anything, but you want the CEO to give up some things.

So there's the problem. The CEO and you want the same things. You have different ideas of how to get there. And in order for your ideas to work, you need the CEO to give up things while you give up nothing. And you think it's well within reason for you to require (or for your government to require) the CEO to give up those things. Even further, you think it's ludicrous that anyone would argue with you with either your ideas or how to get those things to work. All of those things are problematic.

You are correct that if you were to ask the average CEO would say they want a sustainable economy and environment (set aside the few truly idiot jerks and depots out there for the moment, though a few of those do more harm than a million of the others). However, when you leap from "to get what I want" to "CEOs have to give up things" and further even add "I have to give up nothing", you ignore a good many details.

First and foremost is evidence. The folks in charge of , say a drilling operation in Western PA may not intend to destroy the wells of a 100 people or to allow potentially harmful fluid to get into the water system of a local municipality, but it happens becuase he is not forced to consider the evidence that this might happen. OR, in the case of the latter, is either removed enough from the people on the ground or faces such light penalties for the occurance that its easy to just ignore the threats. In fact, most of those guys will flat out deny that these chemicals actually cause much harm. In some cases, no one (outside of a few in the company) even knows what they are, they are not required to test them effectively and are allowed to dismiss evidence of harm that does exist.

Second, despite Night strike's claims.. and it now seems yours as well, I am not advocating communism or simply taking from anyone making a certain wage or having a specific position. I am saying we need a system that makes people actually pay for costs they encure, that removes this idea that externalities are OK to just pass on to the public and not something most businesses really and truly need to think about. Far from your claim that I want them to pay while I pay nothing, I am saying that I AM PAYING, right now, and that this is not right! I and every other person in America is, right now, paying to subsidize everyone from Walmart to pharmaceutical companies to oil drillers to basically any big business in this country.. and a few smaller businesses as well. SOME of those payments are legitimate. I don't mind some government money going to true start-ups on a local level, for example. (not going to get bogged down in a full list here).

so, what we really have is a complete difference of world view, based on entirely different evidence.

and, what is really scary to me is that all the "improvements" in education are working very much to eliminate any knowledge of the greater world view here in the US, except perhaps in some elite schools where the CEO kids get to go.

Right... so your first paragraph is really the only relevant response to my post.

What we're discussing is how to get to a certain spot, not that we need to get there. So your task (not here, just overall) is to prove that the CEO needs to do the things you want him to do to get to the spot you both want to go to plus you have to prove that the CEO's way won't work.

My problem with your position is the vehemence with which you argue that your way is the only way and the only correct way, thus ignoring all other possible ways that may be less harmful to the CEO; and the reason that you argue for your ways is you believe that the harm to the CEO is acceptable because it doesn't harm you. You talk about grandiose things like "rights" which are completely irrelevant. You want people to do things your way and, in order to convince people to do that, you need to prove that your way is better. For example, you think there should be a right to healthcare and you use the term "right" to, in your mind, strengthen your argument. How can anyone be against a human right? That's an argument made by someone who cannot articulate a way in which everyone can get affordable healthcare.

Case in point.. did you happen to catch Santorum's interview where he clarified that his reference to "poor theology" meant people who think we should improve the environment? (among a few other issues)

I try (and mostly succeed) in watching as little of Santorum's interviews or speeches as possible. He's a warmongering, racist bigot; a big government conservative. So no, I didn't catch Santorum's interview that you're referring to.